Pope has an opinion about education. But grasping what it is is proving to be a tougher task the more I think. Obviously there is that famous line "A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring..." (215-216) Arrogance comes with learning. That is what I got from that couplet; if people feel learned, they feel like they can conquer the world. Well, maybe not the world, but at least the piece of work in front of them. They feel qualified to give their opinions on others' noble works. I even got a sense that Pope believes the educated feel obligated to grace the literary world with their critiques. Is that what he is saying?
What about this statement about education: "Men must be taught as if you taught them not; and things unknown proposed as things forgot. Without good breeding, truth is disapprov'd; that only makes superior sense belov'd." (574-577) Give them knowledge without them knowing. And do it accompanied with the installment of good sense into their brains. And who is them? Future critics? Maybe it is not so much education that he disapproves of, but of the arrogance in the people who receive higher education--those who become critics. Is this still the time period when school was for the privelaged? What evidence do you see for or against this half-theory? - KLe-c Mar 2, 2008
As for "A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep or tast not the Pierian spring," I would agree with what you said--a bit of knowledge makes people arrogant. What Pope is saying in the second line, however, is that if you are going to learn, you should go as far as possible. We discussed this a bit in class and Brother Tom said something to the effect that a little learning makes you drunk but more learning makes you sober. When you initially comprehend something, you do, like Kle said, feel like you could conquer the world. But as you learn more and more, a sense of modesty comes with and I think that helps you realize how much more there is to know. For those that are mildly educated (or have learned a little), I think they do feel "obligated to grace the literary world with their critiques" because they think they know all. More knowledge makes people realize that they don't.- Kho-c Mar 2, 2008
There was another place where Pope mentions education and teaching, I'm not exactly sure if it quite relates though...
"To teach vain wits a science little known, T'admire superior sense, and doubt their own!" (199-200)
In these lines it seems to me that Pope is saying that only a select few can teach wit and the rest of us should just sit back and admire it. I get the sense from your quotes KLe and this quote that Pope felt that education was only for the privledged. A select few were special/rich/high enough on the social ladder to be blessed with education. And those blessed people were then obliged to be condescending and critique all the lowly folk and tell them all what they are doing wrong. Because they never had been to school, the lowly folk hadn't been introduced to the wonders of Homer and their writing was nothing like Nature. But of course they couldn't get an education so they should just sit on the side, doubt themselves and admire the talented.
Sorry, that probably could have been a little less sarcastic. - adi-c Mar 3, 2008
The first quote was well covered by Kho, so I'll try and tackle the second one. I believe the them in that quote are the readers of critics. You need to tell them what is good and what is bad without them knowing that you're telling them what to think. I don't think it is the high education he has qualms with, but the people that aren't well educated that act like they know what they are talking about. He also says later on that you have to tell them they know what they are talking about even if they don't have a clue (575). Don't let them know they are dumb. He also says that good breeding is necessary in the poem. I think these two support my idea that the "them" in line 574 is the common reader. Also, Pope died in 1774 so I would say that during the time he wrote this education would still be for a select few. More people during that time worked on trades rather than education. - PMi-c Mar 6, 2008
I think the most imprortant part of the first quote is the idea of how much education one has. If one has only a little bit of education, they do not know enough to know that they hardly know anything (sorry if that is really confusing). That little bit of knowlege goes to thier head and they think they know eveything. But a person who has a lot of education and knowledge knows that there is much more to the world around them and much more that they may never be able to understand about the world around them.
As for the second quote, I think that the "them" refers to the "men"- the ones who write. I think he meant that no one likes to be criticized or feel like they are being looked down upon by someone else. When you are critiquing thier work, it needs to be done in way that lets them think that they already know what you were telling them, they just forgot. - MBe-c Mar 12, 2008
I agree with MBe about the first quote. When one knows just a little information on a topic it often makes them arrogant. This arrogance is not a characteristic of just arrogant people. It comes from almost any student just because they do not know better. I think everyone has that first part, but then he says that "it can be a dangersous thing." This part means that because people only know a little, and assume they know a lot, damage can be done to a situation or discussion. It's like when someone sees a shooting on the street and testifies that the man they saw was a cold blooded killer. If they didn't know the shooter was defending his family from an axe murderer, this little bit of info has caused damage instead of helped. This type of stuff bothers me, especially with a couple of philosophy majors I know. It seems that everytime they read another chapter in their book about a new philosopher, they have changed their whole set of morals and ethics and assume that they know everything there is to know about it. Then they discover the weeknesses of that philosophy and move on to the next, but that little bit of knowledge they had from before has already skewed their judgement for a while.- MKo-c Mar 12, 2008
I agree with the above interpretations for the first quote. To understand the second quote though, the preceding line is necessary.
Blunt truths more mischief than nice falsehoods do;
574 Men must be taught as if you taught them not;
575 And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
576 Without good breeding, truth is disapprov'd;
577 That only makes superior sense belov'd.
When writing about the danger of blunt truths, Pope is writing about problems such as hasty generalizations. For example, one could just state, "this poem stinks", when talking about a truly bad poem. That is a blunt truth; conversely a sharp truth would be , "this poem stinks because it has no artistic elements or a lack of message. Furthermore, in line x there is yadda yadda yadda." A blunt truth is so dangerous because it is so easily shut down by others. Let's say someone says I support Barack Obama. Then you ask them why and they have no answer. That is a blunt truth. Generally blunt truths are a result of people being taught in generalizations. If a teacher tells you Barack Obama is a great candidate and gives no reasons, then, if you choose to bask in ignorance and just say whatever your teacher says, you will be professing blunt truths. This is a general problem with much education. The best form of learning is generally from thorough research because it gives one the opportunity to answer all of the own questions to support their truth, making it a sharp truth. And thus, the best form of education is that
"574 Men must be taught as if you taught them not" - TMc-c Mar 12, 2008
It seems like Pope is saying that education can either be a very good thing and enrich our culture through the workings of young minds, or education can hinder the members of society and do more harm to themselves than anything else. Lines 215-216 can be interpretted as to saying that if we are going to learn, we must have the desire to learn, that want and willingness to dedicate ourselves to it, otherwise, it will all be a waste of time and energy and effort. It's like comparing education to giving 110% on the job, or slacking off and just getting by. Lines 217-218 can elaborate.
Lines 217-218:
"There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
They say that we learn something new everyday, and to Pope this is not only a good thing, but vital to keepings us healthy. Without learning, we poision our minds. When we learn new things, we can think clearly. Learning is healthy for us, therefore we should immerse ourselves and take in as much as we can. We should make it a priority to ask questions and find out some things that we didn't know yesterday today. - AGe-c Mar 13, 2008
I did notice the discussion of education in his essay and he presented some very radical ideas. The idea of teaching too much or not enough is never really discussed but it is very feasible. This can be approached two ways. One, let's think about a child who was never introduced to a gun in his entire life, this isn't accurate but just go with me. If this person never knew of guns, how could he shoot someone? or get the idea to kill a group of people with a gun? However, if we follow this methodology and never talk to children about the effects of drugs and alcohol, then they can get themselves into serious trouble. So do you tell them everything? Or nothing at all? I'm not sure there will ever be a definite conclusion, but Pope brings up great points to as the consequences of learning too much or not enough. - ptr-c Mar 13, 2008
What about this statement about education: "Men must be taught as if you taught them not; and things unknown proposed as things forgot. Without good breeding, truth is disapprov'd; that only makes superior sense belov'd." (574-577) Give them knowledge without them knowing. And do it accompanied with the installment of good sense into their brains. And who is them? Future critics? Maybe it is not so much education that he disapproves of, but of the arrogance in the people who receive higher education--those who become critics. Is this still the time period when school was for the privelaged? What evidence do you see for or against this half-theory? -
As for "A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep or tast not the Pierian spring," I would agree with what you said--a bit of knowledge makes people arrogant. What Pope is saying in the second line, however, is that if you are going to learn, you should go as far as possible. We discussed this a bit in class and Brother Tom said something to the effect that a little learning makes you drunk but more learning makes you sober. When you initially comprehend something, you do, like Kle said, feel like you could conquer the world. But as you learn more and more, a sense of modesty comes with and I think that helps you realize how much more there is to know. For those that are mildly educated (or have learned a little), I think they do feel "obligated to grace the literary world with their critiques" because they think they know all. More knowledge makes people realize that they don't.-
There was another place where Pope mentions education and teaching, I'm not exactly sure if it quite relates though...
"To teach vain wits a science little known, T'admire superior sense, and doubt their own!" (199-200)
In these lines it seems to me that Pope is saying that only a select few can teach wit and the rest of us should just sit back and admire it. I get the sense from your quotes KLe and this quote that Pope felt that education was only for the privledged. A select few were special/rich/high enough on the social ladder to be blessed with education. And those blessed people were then obliged to be condescending and critique all the lowly folk and tell them all what they are doing wrong. Because they never had been to school, the lowly folk hadn't been introduced to the wonders of Homer and their writing was nothing like Nature. But of course they couldn't get an education so they should just sit on the side, doubt themselves and admire the talented.
Sorry, that probably could have been a little less sarcastic.
-
The first quote was well covered by Kho, so I'll try and tackle the second one. I believe the them in that quote are the readers of critics. You need to tell them what is good and what is bad without them knowing that you're telling them what to think. I don't think it is the high education he has qualms with, but the people that aren't well educated that act like they know what they are talking about. He also says later on that you have to tell them they know what they are talking about even if they don't have a clue (575). Don't let them know they are dumb. He also says that good breeding is necessary in the poem. I think these two support my idea that the "them" in line 574 is the common reader. Also, Pope died in 1774 so I would say that during the time he wrote this education would still be for a select few. More people during that time worked on trades rather than education. -
I think the most imprortant part of the first quote is the idea of how much education one has. If one has only a little bit of education, they do not know enough to know that they hardly know anything (sorry if that is really confusing). That little bit of knowlege goes to thier head and they think they know eveything. But a person who has a lot of education and knowledge knows that there is much more to the world around them and much more that they may never be able to understand about the world around them.
As for the second quote, I think that the "them" refers to the "men"- the ones who write. I think he meant that no one likes to be criticized or feel like they are being looked down upon by someone else. When you are critiquing thier work, it needs to be done in way that lets them think that they already know what you were telling them, they just forgot.
-
I agree with MBe about the first quote. When one knows just a little information on a topic it often makes them arrogant. This arrogance is not a characteristic of just arrogant people. It comes from almost any student just because they do not know better. I think everyone has that first part, but then he says that "it can be a dangersous thing." This part means that because people only know a little, and assume they know a lot, damage can be done to a situation or discussion. It's like when someone sees a shooting on the street and testifies that the man they saw was a cold blooded killer. If they didn't know the shooter was defending his family from an axe murderer, this little bit of info has caused damage instead of helped. This type of stuff bothers me, especially with a couple of philosophy majors I know. It seems that everytime they read another chapter in their book about a new philosopher, they have changed their whole set of morals and ethics and assume that they know everything there is to know about it. Then they discover the weeknesses of that philosophy and move on to the next, but that little bit of knowledge they had from before has already skewed their judgement for a while.-
I agree with the above interpretations for the first quote. To understand the second quote though, the preceding line is necessary.
Blunt truths more mischief than nice falsehoods do;
574 Men must be taught as if you taught them not;
575 And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
576 Without good breeding, truth is disapprov'd;
577 That only makes superior sense belov'd.
When writing about the danger of blunt truths, Pope is writing about problems such as hasty generalizations. For example, one could just state, "this poem stinks", when talking about a truly bad poem. That is a blunt truth; conversely a sharp truth would be , "this poem stinks because it has no artistic elements or a lack of message. Furthermore, in line x there is yadda yadda yadda." A blunt truth is so dangerous because it is so easily shut down by others. Let's say someone says I support Barack Obama. Then you ask them why and they have no answer. That is a blunt truth. Generally blunt truths are a result of people being taught in generalizations. If a teacher tells you Barack Obama is a great candidate and gives no reasons, then, if you choose to bask in ignorance and just say whatever your teacher says, you will be professing blunt truths. This is a general problem with much education. The best form of learning is generally from thorough research because it gives one the opportunity to answer all of the own questions to support their truth, making it a sharp truth. And thus, the best form of education is that
"574 Men must be taught as if you taught them not"
-
It seems like Pope is saying that education can either be a very good thing and enrich our culture through the workings of young minds, or education can hinder the members of society and do more harm to themselves than anything else. Lines 215-216 can be interpretted as to saying that if we are going to learn, we must have the desire to learn, that want and willingness to dedicate ourselves to it, otherwise, it will all be a waste of time and energy and effort. It's like comparing education to giving 110% on the job, or slacking off and just getting by. Lines 217-218 can elaborate.
Lines 217-218:
"There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
They say that we learn something new everyday, and to Pope this is not only a good thing, but vital to keepings us healthy. Without learning, we poision our minds. When we learn new things, we can think clearly. Learning is healthy for us, therefore we should immerse ourselves and take in as much as we can. We should make it a priority to ask questions and find out some things that we didn't know yesterday today. -
I did notice the discussion of education in his essay and he presented some very radical ideas. The idea of teaching too much or not enough is never really discussed but it is very feasible. This can be approached two ways. One, let's think about a child who was never introduced to a gun in his entire life, this isn't accurate but just go with me. If this person never knew of guns, how could he shoot someone? or get the idea to kill a group of people with a gun? However, if we follow this methodology and never talk to children about the effects of drugs and alcohol, then they can get themselves into serious trouble. So do you tell them everything? Or nothing at all? I'm not sure there will ever be a definite conclusion, but Pope brings up great points to as the consequences of learning too much or not enough. -